I focus almost exclusively on PvP, whether solo, small gang, or large bloc warfare. In the past, I've been a miner, mission runner, and faction warfare jockey. I'm particularly interested in helping high-sec players get into 0.0 combat.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

B0TLRD and Stagnation

A corpmate and I were involved in a discussion about the
state of null-sec, and the topic of B0TLRD came up recently. For those of you who aren’t aware, in a
nutshell B0TLRD is an agreement between the CFC and Pandemic Legion that
neither will interfere with sov or POS structures of the other in a laundry
list of claimed systems, nor camp or otherwise disrupt each others’ rental
empires to any great extent (roams are okay, gatecamps are okay, but no cloaky
camps that shut down entire systems for hours on end), nor move fleets of a
size that could constitute a sov threat.

Effectively B0TLRD removes risk from about 2/3 of the galaxy
for the CFC coalition and PL alliance.
Note the phrasing of that… I’ll get to that later.

My corpmate made the following comment:

“Tal I have to disagree with the B0TLRD accords being the
source of stagnation [in null-sec]. It's
much, MUCH bigger than that. B0TLORD
protects our space, as well as BOT's space.. and that's it. It keeps both CFC and PL from engaging each
other, as well as hotdropping each other in their own space. It does *NOT* Protect PL's allies (N3 or
their renters).”

I suspect a number of people share the same opinion, and on
the surface, it seems to be an accurate one.
But I respectfully disagree with it.
B0TLRD is a huge cause of stagnation, and I believe it’s directly
responsible for the malaise, unsubs, and migration from sov entities currently
affecting null-sec.

Let me explain.

B0TLRD Creates Safety

It’s undeniably true that B0TLRD creates a safer environment
for the signatories. Both the CFC and PL
are meticulous in honoring the exact terms of their agreements. Sure, they’ll screw you some other way, but
neither is going to exploit B0TLRD to sneak forces into each other’s staging
systems and to headshot the other.

As a result, the CFC gains the freedom to deploy wherever
they want to cause a ruckus in someone else’s space without having to worry
about PL super-slapping them, or joining anyone else to super-slap them. PL doesn’t have the numbers to engage in
multiple battles on multiple fronts, as would happen if the CFC decided they
wanted to seize PL’s rental empire under Brothers of Tangra. That’d be difficult for PL to contend with
under the best of circumstances.

Don’t forget, they’re –corporations-. Null-sec is business. And that’s exactly what B0TLRD ensures… that
business continues to boom. No moon goo
interruption, no expensive sov wars, no destruction of baby Titans or
supercarriers. It’s a way for coalitions
and alliances to solidify their funding.

Note the absence.
Roaming gangs and ratter ganks are still perfectly acceptable. Ratters and miners are, in particular, more
susceptible to roaming gangs than PvP pilots, and PvE losses are generally not
eligible for SRP, SRP being the only way individual losses can impact an
alliance’s bottom line. In every way
that affects the individuals directly, the risk of loss that defines null-sec
life is still there. B0TLRD does nothing
to assure individual income or safety.

So, when we talk about safety, we’re talking about safety
for alliances and coalitions only.
Roams, which most often result in ganks in null-sec, are still very much
alive, but these costs fall squarely on the shoulders of the players themselves. I don’t know of a single alliance that
reimburses for ratting ship losses (nor should they). But the dichotomy is an interesting one. B0TLRD simultaneously reduces meaningful
content, preserves alliance revenue, and specifically calls for the continuation
of player-focused loss.

B0TLRD Prevents Risk
from Third Parties

Sure, B0TLRD prevents the CFC and PL from going to war (war
in null-sec defined as taking away each other’s infrastructure), but that
leaves the rest of the universe, right?

The CFC, PL, and N3 are the vast majority of sov owners in
null, representing the lion’s share of titans and supercarriers. N3 and PL are tightly allied to combat the
CFC’s power, but B0TLRD effectively turns this relationship into a defensive
alliance. If someone attacks one, they
must attack both.

The remaining players can’t really threaten anyone. If they all teamed up with N3, they could
make things difficult for the CFC, but I doubt even that even that could
counter the CFC’s super and titan forces – not without PL. CFC sov is safe from all comers as a result
of B0TLRD; at worst, they have a POS here or there picked at by independent
entities, but their sov is secure. A big
war with real risk of loss isn’t going to happen to N3, PL, of the CFC.

Reductionem Ad
Nihilim

And that risk of loss is essential to keeping null-sec
meaningful and passionate. Part of what
draws players to Eve is the fact that they stand to lose ships and modules
every time they undock. The losses are
real, the risks are real. And when the
risk of loss is real, it imparts meaning.
That’s the “content” people talk about as it relates to null-sec – the
narrative of importance. Without it,
we’re playing a game of risk with no real consequences.

Think about your personal activity. Do you care as much about a pre-season
scrimmage of your favorite football team as you do a playoff game? What percentage of those who scream at the
television in despair or joy in the post-season are doing the same thing during
the pre-season? A couple, sure. But certainly not many. Our minds wander, we focus on different
things, different games, different priorities.
Ultimately, the only thing that Eve can use to encourage null-sec
players to log in and keep their subscriptions up is that sense of importance,
immersion, and engagement. When it’s
present, Eve is a virtual universe with consequences to every action, where
every person has an emotional investment in being a part of the story. Without it, Eve is just a spaceship game,
hollow where it should be overflowing with emotion.

Yes, those fights are entertaining. But it’s not as entertaining as being part of
something larger – not in null-sec. And
because of that, people are choosing to do “something else” instead of
playing. The meaning isn’t there. And B0TLRD represents the absence of the very
soul of null-sec.

And the lack of that meaning is, in my opinion, the reason
why USTZ numbers are averaging 19-20k during the weekdays. Those who are still active are flocking to
low-sec to get those fights. The promise
of null-sec is laying unfulfilled. And if
null-sec doesn’t evoke the passion needed to encourage us to care about what
happens there, what’s the point of it?

6 comments:

I fear that the recently announced 'power projection' changes are going to further incentivize PL and CFC leadership to maintain the Bot Lord agreements.

Large amounts of space holdings should become harder to defend if caps are given a cool down timer between jumps. CCP probably believes this will shake up the large empires and cause them to break up into smaller groups that basically stick around their home territory and fight their neighbors. And CCP would be dead wrong...

If BOTLRD remains in place CFC and PL can still be free to base wherever the action is hottest for their members while feeling secure because the other side is not going to roll a super fleet into their territory while the home team is away.

So where does that leave us? Still begging for an overhaul of the actual Sov system ala the Farm & Fields idea.

Your point of view remains very very focused on CFC and PL as the two only actors worth mentioning. The point of a force projection limitation is that if you are a smaller alliance, you will be able to threaten undefended parts of one of the big groups territory. Currently, if BL strikes CFC in the north, and NC. Strikes CFC in the south, CFC can dunk BL with full force at one timer, and dunk NC. With full force at another timer. With enough force projection limitation, the same situation could end with a lost CFC system.

We do not need PL to kill CFC or vice versa. We need other people to be able to threaten PL or CFC territory/integrity. Even just a little bit.

I have thought about your exact point before and what I believe would happen in your scenario is that yes the CFC could get attacked in 2 different spots and probably lose a few systems TEMPORARILY. They could spend 2 weeks cleaning up one attack and then redeploy and stomp on the other.

However, in certain versions of the Farms & Fields idea where you need to actively live in a system to keep the Sov the CFC, PL and NC could face a situation where dozens of systems are losing Sov giving a chance for mid sized corps to move in and take a system. That would be a much better situation than we have now where only a handful of alliances have the size to launch a serious Sov war.

When I heard about BOTLRD, my response was, essentially, "If they can make peace in Europe, they can make peace in EVE." The major blocs, but particularly the CFC, are essentially governments, and governments seek a certain amount of stability of their borders, whether or not they have greater territorial ambitions.

Apparently the leaders of Null Sec are calling on CCP to install Occupancy Based Sov (aka Farms & Fields) and more NPC Null systems to be embedded into Sov Null areas to spice up PVP. Link to the article http://themittani.com/news/null-deal-statement-sovereign-00

It's interesting to take a look at the map in the article and notice that huge amounts of the Galactic East have no NPC stations.

Subscribe via RSS

Copyright Notice

EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to Target Caller to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, Target Caller. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.